PS: Killing gods is NOT controlling the world around us. Killing gods is a power trip with no real point. Even in your setting Jak, since someone else is just going to get promoted.
Not to be offensive then but perhaps you should brush up on your religion. Cultures today still revere certain animals as holy or possessing the spirit of a divine being.
I specifically noted the word control. Killing something is the simplest and often most effective means of limiting its potential variable effects.
"Learning how to cooperate with each other to farm, to write, to add or subtract that is what gave us civilization."
Early man, and some not so early, believed symbols held power beyond representation and concept see the bible, mummification, most of chinese mythology. As time progressed we conquered our symbols, in most nations and faiths, and now these symbols abide by the law and function of man. As such killing sixteen people because God told me to is no longer a viable defense. In extension of that because the Pope no longer has the power to command people on faith, in general, to form a crusade and use it to devastate much of the modern world. Due to this mastery of our gods we no longer war, in general, on each other due to matters of faith, superstition, and coincidence.
In most cases we did not kill out gods to remove the influence from our lives we forced them to play by our rules. In your game gods are ideas well in our world so they are, but now ideas have to play by our rules.
Edit for your comment: It kills the personality. Typically if you go hunting Gods you're not upset with the concept of the idea. You're upset with who is behind the steering wheel.
Furthermore it is not my setting merely a typical one that I was using as an example of a differentiation between the functions of your setting and the functions of others.
On the concept of slaying gods, the way I look at it is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the gods have finite power and interact with the world like greek gods, who could theoretically be killed by non gods (Titans were pretty dangerous right? In D&D/PF, a Titan is around CR 20), or have intangible gods that you can't kill, but aren't all up in everyone's business all the time.
If you have tangible all-powerful deities who cannot be killed by a party of other godlike beings (IE - 20th level heroes), then the question always comes back to "Why don't the gods just handle it?", because if they are in fact far beyond a 20th level party's capabilities, then they should be able to effortlessly greater teleport to any problem that would bother them and stop it immediately.
EDIT:
PS: Killing gods is NOT controlling the world around us. Killing gods is a power trip with no real point. Even in your setting Jak, since someone else is just going to get promoted.
Actually, my younger brother played a sorcerer to 25th level, who became a lich sometime around 18th-20th level. He was something of a noble scion of his clan of kobolds, having been gifted with sorcerous power and thus above his lesser kin who were treated like dirt by the sorcerer caste. Looking upon the plight of his people and sympathizing, he tried to petition the clan elders and council of sorcerers to cast off their harmful traditions, and force alliances with the up-worlders for the benefit of all of their kind.
He was given the boot as an outcast, and laughed out of his home. Tossed out into the cold (literally as his homeland was inside of a snow-covered mountain). He awoke from a cold-induced coma to find himself in a fire-heated tent with a tiefling conjurer who found him while she was wandering, and had to chase off a dog that was dragging him around like a chew toy. Such began a friendship of newb wizard and newb sorcerer.
Eventually, he gained power and his draconic heritage was emerging more and more, and his sorcerous power increased manifold. He went on grand adventures with her and new friends, including rescuing dwarf maidens from an evil necromancer, routing a drow invasion of a dwarf hold, breaking up a bandit camp conspiracy, and eventually overthrowing some diabolical operations of an evil brotherhood of mages. His thoughts were with his people, however...
Eventually he returned to his people, and confronted the council of sorcerers with his newfound power and his up-worlder friends at his side. Together, they overthrew them, and liberated the lower castes of his people, whom he took to a new city-home that he and his up-worlder friends had constructed with their magic and trained dire badgers, that was both above and below ground, meant to be a hybrid-level home for his people and others whose homes were destroyed by the villains that the party opposed. A new peaceful world.
However, he eventually realized that his people would never be free. It was the kobold god who demanded that their society act in the way it had for years, and though he was bucking the horse, the god would eventually bring his power to bare, and he would not be able to protect his people forever. Thus, he became a lich so that he could continue his work, and he and his mage friends built a laboratory and fortress, where they were unable to be seen by scrying magics but could look out upon the world through their own proverbial crystal balls as needed.
Eventually, the gods caught notice of their power, and went to them. Several of the gods who trusted the party appeared before them and related a terrible plot that several of the more evil gods were concocting to throw the balance out of whack. Due to an agreement between the gods to not start a war between them, the gods petitioned the party to travel across the planes and seek the elder creator and petition him for godhood with the nominations from their own gods. Not having been part of the original agreement, these new gods would not be bound by the contract to remain neutral, and could stop the evil gods where the good gods were bound to tolerate.
During this quest, which didn't involve defeating gods to ascend to godhood (but actually more of the reverse), he saw his opportunity to defeat the kobold god once and for all, so that a new era could be born for the kobolds, where they truly had the freedom to forge their own path through their hopes, their dreams, and their deeds; without the forceful hand of the kobold god and his followers to interfere.
In the above post this is what I disagree with and would point out that anybody with the Assassin PrC would be defined as a assassin by any person I know.Then with respect, the people you know should expand their horizons outside of games and fiction, since they appear to be completely ignorant of the word's historical and present non-fictional definitions. Unless you are referring to the Islamic, specifically Isma'ili sect, known as the 'Hashishin' (or variant spellings thereof), the critical point in most definitions and all correct uses of the term 'Assassin' is the political nature of the Assassin's target. 'Assassin' was never a general term for hired contract hit-men who go out and kill whomever they're paid to eliminate, everywhere from the completely unknown, to the very rich and powerful. Neither the Hashishin, nor the killer specifically out to get important political figures, is well-represented at all by the class and its fluff.
Which is why I will run my game differently.
My Webster's Concise dictionary defination of a assassin : A murderer, esp. one who murders a politically prominent person.
Which indicates to me any murderer can (and as been in our mordern useage) can be called a assassin withouit the political requirement.
I know full well where the word comes from....and unlike it seems releaize words evole and change all the time. Language is a living thing after all.
Also anytime you hire a killer it can be called political. Hire somebody to kill a rival crime boos or a member in a rival organization or a whitness. Those all involve politics. It may not be above the board politics but it is politics.
And I have said it plenty of times before...the fluff is written terribly. I have not ever argued that.
Also on another note....if we go with your strict defination of assassin I have yet to see any proposed assassin concepts here that fits the bill. Yet you have not attacked or insulted them....funny that.
@Ashiel you do realize that description fits most of the older non-omnipotent deities like the greek, norse, roman or even modern asian gods and their relationship with heroes who were usually their children.Yep. Which is why I actually like the Pathfinder gods, because they aren't that big in the grand scheme of things. A 20th level party could likely wipe the floor with them, based on the lore I've read, and you know what?
That suits me just fine. :)
Um not in any game I have or would ever run. And also the guy who killed a goddess...she was a demi god and he was waaaayyy beyond 20th level.
Sidenote: Personaly gods should never be killed in staight combat....that is why the FR gods went to heck and I hope Golarion does not follow suit.
Well, I guess I just figured that by the time you are wielding godlike power in terms of our reality's view on gods, it stands to reason that an entire team of godlike individuals could probably overthrow another godly individual.
Personally, the way I look at it, is if you don't want Gods to be affected by mortals, don't be affecting mortals. Let gods be background, descriptive and narrative tools, and so forth. I guess I just quickly become disenchanted with stuff that is supposed to be vastly beyond 20th level, since by 20th core classes can replicate every act of God in the Holy Bible; and I don't see much need for going drastically beyond that.
Really? I must have missed the spells that allow you to flood the world....or create the universe... cause all the water of a land to turn into blood...or any of the seven plagues at the size and speed they happened in...or gain omipotence and omipresence.
|
On the concept of slaying gods, the way I look at it is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the gods have finite power and interact with the world like greek gods, who could theoretically be killed by non gods (Titans were pretty dangerous right? In D&D/PF, a Titan is around CR 20), or have intangible gods that you can't kill, but aren't all up in everyone's business all the time.
The D&D/Pathfinder titans are basically larger, more powerful giants. But the Greek titans were themselves gods, just by a different name.
I wasn't really interested in the RAW of assassin. As a PrC it is entirely placed in the hands of either the GM or published setting builder to explain why they made it evil only. It hardly matters in my opinion whether you follow that rule or not. As a house rule waiving any alignment restrictions on classes isn't going to ruin anyone's game. Not by itself anyway... But players can get carried away I guess. So it's not a bad idea to enforce some sort of code on classes that deserve them.
Well if you aren't interested in the RAW, why bother the people who are?
Any class, all the races, all the monsters, it's up to the GM to explain it in their setting. The point is that, the class requires waiving. Arguing against it is like saying it's fine if things are unbalanced or broken or don't make sense. Nothing is ever broken because the GM can fix it. I mean why even have a discussion on this because the GM can fix it.
GMs who want to deal with it will fix it or explain it. GMs who don't will just try to ignore it. I'm not sure where at any point it's better to ask players who you're worried will get carried away to be evil than to just disallow the class. EVER.
On the concept of slaying gods, the way I look at it is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the gods have finite power and interact with the world like greek gods, who could theoretically be killed by non gods (Titans were pretty dangerous right? In D&D/PF, a Titan is around CR 20), or have intangible gods that you can't kill, but aren't all up in everyone's business all the time.
If you have tangible all-powerful deities who cannot be killed by a party of other godlike beings (IE - 20th level heroes), then the question always comes back to "Why don't the gods just handle it?", because if they are in fact far beyond a 20th level party's capabilities, then they should be able to effortlessly greater teleport to any problem that would bother them and stop it immediately.
Exactly... why would these gods bother with every little mortal complaint? There are infinite mortals compared to a few gods... Its far more efficient to teach their followers to go after the pests themselves. The gods have each other to worry about. But when you as a greater being are directly challenged by one of these little insects you would simply slay him on the spot no save or attack roll needed. Similar to swatting a fly. And this is using the idea that gods are physical beings! These are supposedly the beings that MAKE magic work in many settings... using a magic weapon on them wouldn't work. They MAKE life and death itself in some settings... they could simply change your status to dead if you ever got strong enough to directly challenge one.
As cute as that story is it is rare that a "God War" game goes well. I am reminded of a letter to TSR I read from the compiled past Dragon magazine archive they sold on CD rom. Where a player was complaining that since he conquered and enslaved the gods (the male gods worked his mines while the women served in his harem) He needed bigger challenges stated out in D&D. I couldn't stop laughing. This was point in case why it is absurd to stat gods out like they are monsters. This player and his GM ruined this setting for further play among themselves.
Really? I must have missed the spells that allow you to flood the world....or create the universe... cause all the water of a land to turn into blood...or any of the seven plagues at the size and speed they happened in...or gain omipotence and omipresence.
They've been toned down since then, but a 3.5 wizard could do all of that with nothing more than the 3.5 SRD for resources; including the creation of the world, all living creatures within it, and parting oceans. In fact, the only reason they needed anything outside of core was just for genesis for creating your own ever-expanding plane, which was included in the planar rules. EDIT: And they could do it by 13th level at the earliest with a dash of Parmesan.
Aranna perhaps you should start a thread as going any further with your gods verses pathfinder gods is completely off the topic of alignments and their implications in regards to class. We have explained to you how and why it will work particularly in the setting that is standard pathfinder and the logical reasons for the actions. If you want to debate your mechanics verses what is almost standard epic leveling you are more than welcome to in another thread.
I will happily follow and debate with you as I'm sure will many others.
It would be nice to get this thread somewhat back on topic.
Exactly... why would these gods bother with every little mortal complaint? There are infinite mortals compared to a few gods... Its far more efficient to teach their followers to go after the pests themselves. The gods have each other to worry about.
This is more or less my point. If they are omnipotent, then they don't need those mortals. Mortals need them. But due to the existence of multiple gods, it seems gods need mortals, because it's the only edge they have over other gods, assuming all are omnipotent (infinity +1 is technically greater than infinity).
But when you as a greater being are directly challenged by one of these little insects you would simply slay him on the spot no save or attack roll needed. Similar to swatting a fly. And this is using the idea that gods are physical beings! These are supposedly the beings that MAKE magic work in many settings... using a magic weapon on them wouldn't work. They MAKE life and death itself in some settings... they could simply change your status to dead if you ever got strong enough to directly challenge one.
This is pretty much my biggest beef with settings that have gods that are supposedly active and all powerful. If you have a being capable of exerting their uninhibited will over the world, but nothing threatens them? Well, that's about as boring as watching superman catch a purse snatcher for the hundredth time.
At some point, something is going to grow as strong as that god. That's just the nature of RPGs. Eventually Cloud Strife is going to be able to solo Ruby Weapon, and then he's on top. Welcome to awesome. You might actually reach a point where you're the new god on the block in terms of power, so at that point, you should probably retire and find your own mortals to play with.
As cute as that story is it is rare that a "God War" game goes well. I am reminded of a letter to TSR I read from the compiled past Dragon magazine archive they sold on CD rom. Where a player was complaining that since he conquered and enslaved the gods (the male gods worked his mines while the women served in his harem) He needed bigger challenges stated out in D&D. I couldn't stop laughing. This was point in case why it is absurd to stat...
If a god dying in a campaign ruins the campaign for your group forever, then you're not being creative enough. Ok, that character has apparently reached the point where he's the head honcho. Maybe he finally reached the very top of the proverbial food chain. Now that campaign is done, and you can start over with a new character in the next campaign, but happily enjoy hearing about the "new god" who is actually your old character, and your character has become part of the pantheon of your groups' tales of souls and sagas.
What legends will you forge next?
Well if you aren't interested in the RAW, why bother the people who are?
I am not... I am bothering the people who are overly worried about historical accuracy.
If you've read Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny, statting-up gods can make sense.
If you're saying you can't stat the judeo-christian God, probably not, but I've never met a D&D cleric who wasn't pagan.
Edit: yes, I quit reading and skipped ahead about 3 pages into this thread that used to be about alignment requirements; and no, I don't see why Death attack should require an evil alignment, but then I didn't write the rulebook.
Well if you aren't interested in the RAW, why bother the people who are?I am not... I am bothering the people who are overly worried about historical accuracy.
So, in the politest way possible, you're here to stir up trouble?
@Hitdice. Awesome book and a great example of a reason to stat up gods and the logic for conflict among them directly involving mortals. I don't blame you for skipping ahead. It seems the thread is degenerating into just random arguments now.
Ok we aren't far apart Ashiel. Since this all borders into epic play (something I admit I am utterly unskilled at running), then more power to you for making it work. As a retirement for a character I have to reluctantly agree that becoming the next god would be cool.
I would still caution anyone looking to play beyond 20th level to avoid such games... but that is because such skill is rare and I hate to see people ruin their games.
Well if you aren't interested in the RAW, why bother the people who are?I am not... I am bothering the people who are overly worried about historical accuracy.
So, in the politest way possible, you're here to stir up trouble?
Oh no not at all. I am just jumping onto the side topics that sprang up. Because the alignment issue has no resolution. You either follow the rules and make assassin's evil or you don't and make house rules to support it. Both sides are correct.
The question was why? People were entertaining justification and using historical references to prove their respective points. You seem to have assumed that they were just being simulationists. You are assuming this is a right or wrong thread.
It could be more if people would but read it, but alas I fear they will not and I will be left alone on a spring breeze floating drearily downstream through the park and amongst the other leaves that cavort and play, but I shall be alone amongst them wondering at their thoughts and their dreams and their hopes as I do naught but fall.
Well if you aren't interested in the RAW, why bother the people who are?I am not... I am bothering the people who are overly worried about historical accuracy.
So, in the politest way possible, you're here to stir up trouble?
@Hitdice. Awesome book and a great example of a reason to stat up gods and the logic for conflict among them directly involving mortals. I don't blame you for skipping ahead. It seems the thread is degenerating into just random arguments now.
"The new Shiva relies far too heavily on concussion grenades." (Don't quote me, didn't have the wherewithal to look it up.)
Why is obvious isn't it?
1- The game has always had alignments so this new version inherited what came before. Although they might have pathfinderized a bit here or there it is still the alignment system thought up by Gygaxx in the 1970s. Not perfect but clean and efficient, mostly.
2- Classes were developed for good or evil play, in the case of the assassin this is evil.
3- The internal alignment logic supports the drift into evil of someone willing to kill someone for NO other reason than to earn a status class. If you kill someone because they are of political group Beta, because you were paid to, or because they are evil than you have FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.
See no need for any historical justifications at all... The logic of why Evil is required of assassin is obvious and internally consistent with the existing alignment system and class requirements. Altering this doesn't hurt the game however so it IS kind of moot. Just make your alterations to the alignment system consistent and your players should be happy.
Altering this doesn't hurt the game however so it IS kind of moot
I think people are complaining about how you can't play an assassin in PFS; there are a lot of reasons to ban evil characters, but Death Attack is an interesting ability that I'd like to see used more.
So Hitdice, you want to alter PFS play? That would require petitioning the developers I imagine. Not a lot most of us can do to help you there unless you make an actual petition for us to sign... something developers would take notice of.
The problem isn't the etymology its the people that assume the PRC has a certain background that isn't present anywhere at all in the class write up.
The scrutiny that is being applied here to challenge the preconception that people have whenever they keep stating that it is a necessity that the class has the background because that is what Assassin means.
"How it's come to be known in the game" is not exactly a universal conception and it has absolutely no fluff to support it so I don't exactly see the leg you're standing on here other than a refusal to read the rest of the thread which in your defense is painfully long and filled with rather irritating fighting over opinions.
I have read the thread and I'm not standing on any leg - I'm asking Finn k a question. You may not be particularly concerned about the root of the word, but he is. Im curious what he thinks is better.
3- The internal alignment logic supports the drift into evil of someone willing to kill someone for NO other reason than to earn a status class. If you kill someone because they are of political group Beta, because you were paid to, or because they are evil than you have FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.
So if you kill someone because you enjoy it, because they pissed you off, because you didn't like the way they looked, because someone asked you to, you have still FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.
Which is what I was getting at with my narrative on page 6. ;p
It is literally impossible to become an assassin in accordance of that silly prereq without metagaming. There's also no justification on how killing someone grants those skills.
3- The internal alignment logic supports the drift into evil of someone willing to kill someone for NO other reason than to earn a status class. If you kill someone because they are of political group Beta, because you were paid to, or because they are evil than you have FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.So if you kill someone because you enjoy it, because they pissed you off, because you didn't like the way they looked, because someone asked you to, you have still FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.
Which is what I was getting at with my narrative on page 6. ;p
It is literally impossible to become an assassin in accordance of that silly prereq without metagaming. There's also no justification on how killing someone grants those skills.
I agree with you that it's a silly prerequisite, however it's not literally impossible. One could conceive of an initiation rite where the prospective assassin performs various tests and so forth - finishing with being given their first hit by the guildmaster.
That's obviously not present in the flavor material, but I always understood prestige classes to require extra DM work anyhow on that side of things.
|
3- The internal alignment logic supports the drift into evil of someone willing to kill someone for NO other reason than to earn a status class. If you kill someone because they are of political group Beta, because you were paid to, or because they are evil than you have FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.So if you kill someone because you enjoy it, because they pissed you off, because you didn't like the way they looked, because someone asked you to, you have still FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.
Which is what I was getting at with my narrative on page 6. ;p
It is literally impossible to become an assassin in accordance of that silly prereq without metagaming. There's also no justification on how killing someone grants those skills.
I agree with you that it's a silly prerequisite, however it's not literally impossible. One could conceive of an initiation rite where the prospective assassin performs various tests and so forth - finishing with being given their first hit by the guildmaster.
That's obviously not present in the flavor material, but I always understood prestige classes to require extra DM work anyhow on that side of things.
For example, the extra GM work I have to do is to change the alignment restriction! :D
3- The internal alignment logic supports the drift into evil of someone willing to kill someone for NO other reason than to earn a status class. If you kill someone because they are of political group Beta, because you were paid to, or because they are evil than you have FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.So if you kill someone because you enjoy it, because they pissed you off, because you didn't like the way they looked, because someone asked you to, you have still FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.
Which is what I was getting at with my narrative on page 6. ;p
It is literally impossible to become an assassin in accordance of that silly prereq without metagaming. There's also no justification on how killing someone grants those skills.
I agree with you that it's a silly prerequisite, however it's not literally impossible. One could conceive of an initiation rite where the prospective assassin performs various tests and so forth - finishing with being given their first hit by the guildmaster.
That's obviously not present in the flavor material, but I always understood prestige classes to require extra DM work anyhow on that side of things.
I know that, but if the GM is making stuff to have it work for you, then why must it be an evil occupation? Why can't you have political targets? There's a lot of people that will claim that the CRB is supposed to be setting neutral, so why make assassin's evil? I haven't actually gotten into novels where there was an assassin's guild that existed purely for the evulz.
There's a lot of dancing around between the two prerequisites. Either one just makes the other one unneeded and highly limiting. It's like dealing with religious fanatics who will quote certain passages and interpret them in a way that proves their point, and then when it's argued against they'll come up with some other justification even if it coincides with their previous defense. And when that is argued they go back to their first point.
What I've learned is that there is not really any justification for the Assassin being evil other than that's how Gygax wanted it. I guess I'm done with this thread, unless there's an actual legitimate reason other than that that hasn't been brought up.
For example, the extra GM work I have to do is to change the alignment restriction! :D3- The internal alignment logic supports the drift into evil of someone willing to kill someone for NO other reason than to earn a status class. If you kill someone because they are of political group Beta, because you were paid to, or because they are evil than you have FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.So if you kill someone because you enjoy it, because they pissed you off, because you didn't like the way they looked, because someone asked you to, you have still FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.
Which is what I was getting at with my narrative on page 6. ;p
It is literally impossible to become an assassin in accordance of that silly prereq without metagaming. There's also no justification on how killing someone grants those skills.
I agree with you that it's a silly prerequisite, however it's not literally impossible. One could conceive of an initiation rite where the prospective assassin performs various tests and so forth - finishing with being given their first hit by the guildmaster.
That's obviously not present in the flavor material, but I always understood prestige classes to require extra DM work anyhow on that side of things.
Yeah, that's another perplexing point to me. I don't really see why it's important - prestige classes are supposed to require DM work (at least as I understand them) so it just seems like an obvious thing that not only does the flavor material probably need tweaking to fit your world but more substantial changes may have to be made. In some DM worlds assassins may well be a religious cult, in others some kind of highly skilled loner.
I guess I struggle to see this as an issue with a "right" answer.
|
|
What would you call the class instead, Finn K?
I ask because it seems to me that nothing is going to survive the etymological scrutiny you've applied to assassin. Everything is going to be just as "wrong". No doubt "hit man", "murderer" or anything else is going to be equally restrictive and/or historically inaccurate.
It's not terribly important to me, but FWIW I think that "how it's come to be known in the game" is a good reason to favor one choice over the other. (remember the "it's not D&D if wizards don't forget their spells!" crowd? Should vancian magic be abandoned since fifteenth century "wizards" weren't supposed to cast spells like that?)
Steve, Aranna--
I don't know what else would really be appropriate to call the class... if I didn't indicate that clearly enough in my post before, let me indicate it now-- I more or less give up on any struggle to try to change the names in the game. Ain't a realistic game in the first place, so in spite of my "itch" to be historically accurate with things that are drawn from history, I already accept a lot of things that weren't, so... y'know, you have a point on that (my personal gut-reaction is that "assassin" shouldn't be a class name-- it's something one does, as much as it is anything about what one is or what one's skills are, unless we made a class to represent the original 'hashishin' themselves-- but I don't know what I'd replace 'Assassin' with for the class, and I acknowledge that it's not that important an issue).
I am still, however, much more concerned with people who evidently have no idea that the word has a different meaning in non-game/RL/historical usage, which is why I pressed the issue of its real-world use in that last post. Another example: Monk. Actually somewhat appropriate, if you take the class to represent orders like that of the semi-legendary Shao Lin Temple. At the same time, I'm quite appalled by those who have graduated high school, had a class or two in European history, maybe have some interest in philosophy or some other such topic.... and yet have no idea what a "monk" is, or a "monastic order" in European historical usage (particularly Dark Ages/Middle Ages/Early Renaissance); and perhaps have no idea about how important the monasteries, and the monks in them, were to preserving knowledge that would have been lost after the fall of the Roman Empire (even so, we still had to relearn a lot of Greek philosophy from the Islamic Cultures who had preserved it while we lost it).
It's one thing to use a word/name/title in a sense that is wrong historically, it's a whole 'nother thing to be quite ignorant that the word means something else outside the game. And it's still not something I can do that much about, except observe that it really annoys me and then let it go.
Yeah, that makes sense. I think "it just annoys me" is a fine reason to argue about something on the Internet, BTW. I was just curious if you thought there was something strictly better than assassin.
What I've learned is that there is not really any justification for the Assassin being evil other than that's how Gygax wanted it.
I seem to remember him justifying it in AD&D on the grounds that killing for money is evil (or something). However, I think you are making the key point here. Any judgement on alignment is ultimately dependent on the individual - given no consensus on what constitutes a necessarily evil act, it is unsurprising that there is no consensus as to whether becoming an assassin should require one to be evil.
|
|
My Webster's Concise dictionary defination of a assassin : A murderer, esp. one who murders a politically prominent person.Which indicates to me any murderer can (and as been in our mordern useage) can be called a assassin withouit the political requirement.
Interesting. Still, the "esp. one who murders a politically prominent person" tells you how it's used, normally; even though Webster's has evidently decided that it's not required.
So-- why don't we call Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy, Ed Hein, David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez, the Zodiac Killer, Aileen Wuornos... countless others both famous and unknown throughout history "Assassins"? (well, maybe you do call them 'assassins', but very few others ever do, and the media, sociologists, psychologists, and historians do not). We usually do not call any murderer an assassin, unless his/her target was politically sensitive and chosen to eliminate their influence or to make a public statement (even if the choice was motivated by insanity, rather than for any more rational reason). Webster's may support you-- yet it just isn't used, at all, to refer to murderers without some sort of prominent/political linkage. Or, do you have examples of that from the press and/or non-fiction works that I'm just not aware of? (kind'a hard for me to prove a negative, but if you have a positive example, it'd be easy to show and support your point.)
What separates an assassin from a terrorist? I suppose restraint-- the fact that the Assassin chooses a specific target, a person of influence, and tries to eliminate that particular person, usually with an intent to limit collateral damage (though not always). A terrorist targets groups, usually with regard to their belonging to a particular class, or nationality, or otherwise defined group-- but without much regard for who they are as individuals (usually)-- with an intent towards inflicting fear and terror on the civilian population, and thereby influencing governments through their effect on the people.
Some more murderers-- John Wilkes Booth. John Hinckley, Jr. Gavrilo Princip. Lee Harvey Oswald. James Earl Ray. Sirhan Sirhan. Guy Fawkes. Dan White.
All named assassins, all linked by the political nature of their targets.
Even Wikipedia, in its exhaustive lists... has only two that might be questionable, and one of those (IMO) is still political enough to qualify anyway: Mark David Chapman. Nathan Gale (the one that I still find questionable).
While 'Webster's' appears to permit your usage, still doesn't seem like its done at all in public.
Why challenge your statement on it? You said yourself that apparently all of your friends do not make the political connection when someone says 'Assassin' (and perhaps, given the statement that your friends see 'assassin' immediately on looking at the class, perhaps all they need to see is 'paid to kill', uses poison and other sneak attacks to do it, and stealthy?). Oddly enough, more than half of the assassins I've named above weren't paid at all for their attempt (successful or otherwise) to kill someone-- their motivation was not monetary. My previous post (labelled to Steve Geddes and Aranna) answers why I'm not making a huge fight with people over the name in game, but that ignorance of the word's meanings outside the game still bothers me (and admittedly, that is my problem, that things like this bug me, as much or more than it really is anyone else's problem).
Ignoring requirements and codes of conduct (as that's what this is all about)
does a class
1) have abilities that have an alignment descriptor?
(y) (N)
2) promenently use positive or negative energy?
(Y) (N)
3) have a class ability that targets only specific alignments?
(Y) (N)
4) defend against abilities that only target specific alignments?
(Y) (N)
5) [placeholder for whatever you think should be on this list]
(Y) (N)
this, in my view, should be criteria for whether a class as written should have an alignment restriction/code of conduct/ex-class rules.
3- The internal alignment logic supports the drift into evil of someone willing to kill someone for NO other reason than to earn a status class. If you kill someone because they are of political group Beta, because you were paid to, or because they are evil than you have FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.So if you kill someone because you enjoy it, because they pissed you off, because you didn't like the way they looked, because someone asked you to, you have still FAILED to meet the requirement since there IS another reason you killed him.
Which is what I was getting at with my narrative on page 6. ;p
It is literally impossible to become an assassin in accordance of that silly prereq without metagaming. There's also no justification on how killing someone grants those skills.
No no it's possible. The PC decides their reason for killing...
Realistic it may NOT be. But then it IS a game. A lot of things about character advancement are unrealistic. Suddenly speaking new languages, suddenly having new skills or abilities, it's how the game works. You could work out training rules if you want to add a bit of realism.
|
|
Realistic it may NOT be. But then it IS a game. A lot of things about character advancement are unrealistic. Suddenly speaking new languages, suddenly having new skills or abilities, it's how the game works. You could work out training rules if you want to add a bit of realism.
In the groups I'm currently playing in (and it's been the practice in groups I've been involved in for quite a while), we don't have 'training rules', but usually the player brings up the fact that his/her PC is working on learning new languages, or developing new abilities, or maybe practicing and working on learning new skills (frequently, where another character already knows the language, ability, or skill-- it's also mentioned that that character is teaching the other one a little bit in their spare time)... well before getting to that next level increase, when the player actually takes the new feat, spends SPs on a new skill, picks up a new language, or otherwise acquires new abilities. Apparently, from the discussions over on the "Core Material" thread, I'm in a minority of one on these boards, but there are some of us out there who actually like to explain these things in role-play at least a little bit, rather than have sudden new abilities pop up on the character sheet without any explanation at all. YMMV, of course-- I prefer doing it this way.
Perfectly fine method, Finn K.
I am curious however, do you let your players select feats from a brand new supplement if they haven't had the time to work on anything from the supplement.
|
|
Perfectly fine method, Finn K.
I am curious however, do you let your players select feats from a brand new supplement if they haven't had the time to work on anything from the supplement.
It depends... if the feat(s) the player wants to select from the new supplement are the same kinds of things or similar sorts of things to what the character's been working on anyway, and/or "right up the character's alley" (aka, a good fit with the character's concept/role/personality)-- the answer's yes (Especially since the character does not have specific 'game-mechanics' names for feats in game, nor the does the character, in his/her impression of the world, usually have this "wait, new supplement came out, so my abilities have changed..." perception that the players have). So far, none of us penalize the player for not being aware of new rules until the last moment.
In fact, there were a few occasions (mainly in the 3.5 days, but there's been one very recent one under PF) where either a new supplement has come out, or the players and GM just became aware of some options that no-one in the group had noticed before-- that really fit one of the characters in personality/role/background and all that... and the player's been allowed to do some rewriting of the character's existing abilities to make use of the newly discovered option to bring the character even closer to the concept the player had in the first place-- so long as it really does fit the character we've seen in the game so far from that player, none of us usually have a problem with such adjustments. There have been a few occasions where this was also done to help make a totally ineffective character become effective in the game-- but so far, it's never been abused to pull 'min-maxing' stunts or excessive optimization on an already effective character (usually it just results in something new/nifty/cool for role-playing, without much effect on the numbers).
The answer might be "no" if the ability's the sort of thing that really seems out of character for that PC and/or the sort of thing that, up until that point, the character wouldn't have thought of working on at all. However, with the people I game with... that's never come up, because all of us are pretty committed to playing the concepts and personalities we came up with for each character in the first place.